Thompson v. North Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011)

Eric Thompson and his fiancée, Miriam Regalado, were both employees of North American Stainless (“NAS”). Three weeks after Regalado filed a charge with the EEOC against NAS, alleging sex discrimination, NAS fired Thompson. Thompson subsequently filed a lawsuit against NAS, claiming the company had fired him in order to retaliate

Stiefel v. Bechtel Corp., 624 F.3d 1240 (2010)

James Richard Stiefel worked for Bechtel as an ironworker at a power plant. Five weeks before he was laid off, Stiefel injured his left hand while on the job. In his lawsuit, Stiefel alleged Bechtel laid him off as part of a “medical reduction in force,” which would result in cost savings to Bechtel under its

Over the last few years, caregiver discrimination has become an emerging issue in employment law. A pair of recent court decisions and the potential impact of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, as well as signals from the Obama Administration, in particular the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, suggest that the issue of discrimination because of a worker’s family caregiving responsibilities is gaining recognition and momentum. In March, both the First and Ninth Circuit found in favor of employees who had alleged that they had been discriminated against based on their caregiving responsibilities. In April, the EEOC issued a new technical assistance document on the subject. This recent activity serves as an important reminder to employers that the EEOC, plaintiffs’ attorneys and the courts are scrutinizing employment decisions that adversely affect caregivers more closely than ever to determine whether unlawful discrimination might be afoot. As such, employers would be wise to take proactive steps to avoid allegations of discrimination against caregivers.

EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 543 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 2008)

Tyrone Merritt filed this putative class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated African American and Latino employees, alleging that FedEx’s Basic Skills Test had a statistically significant adverse impact on African American and Latino employees. After issuing a right-to-sue notice to Merritt at his counsel’s request, the EEOC issued an administrative

Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 128 S. Ct. 1147 (2008)

Patricia Kennedy submitted a “Form 283” (an intake questionnaire) and an accompanying affidavit to the EEOC before filing suit against Federal Express, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Federal Express moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that Kennedy had not filed a “charge” with

Nilsson v. City of Mesa, 503 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2007)

Christine Nilsson applied for a position as a police officer with the City of Mesa, Arizona. In conjunction with her application, Nilsson signed a waiver of any and all claims against the police department. During the application process, Nilsson disclosed that she had been involved in an EEOC dispute with the Tempe police

Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Services Ltd. P’ship, 495 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2007)

In response to a charge of discrimination and retaliation that Martha E. Payan filed with the EEOC, the agency issued a right-to-sue letter on September 26, 2003. Payan asserted that the date she received the letter was “unknown.” However, it was undisputed that she failed to file her Title VII complaint